Last week’s post, “God, humbug: Humanist holidays Ads Say Just be Good,” ignited an intense debate in which many posters questioned the motives of ads placed on buses by atheists questioning the existence of God during the holiday season. Tom Krattenmaker’s editorial, “Atheism, a Positive Pillar,” takes a look at a group of atheists who are trying their best to generate good will. Members of the positive atheism movement try to emphasize the things they believe in that are common to society as a whole, rather than their lack of belief in God, which is often subject to intense anger and scrutiny. This spring, a member of the Illinois Legislature told an atheist “We believe in something. You believe in destroying!” This was in response to the atheist arguing that a $1 million state grant to a church was inappropriate. Apparently, the legislator was not aware of how vehemently Thomas Jefferson had argued that taxes should never be used to aid religion.
Like the atheists in last week’s post, positive atheists, led by Margaret Downey also created a controversy with their ad, which read, “Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone.” In response, a local church also put up an ad emphasizing belief in God. However, it is difficult to question the true intentions of Downey’s ad, because after the church placed their ad, Downey found a way to make the situation a positive experience for everyone involved. She arranged for members of both groups to volunteer together at a food pantry.
The positive atheists are certainly fighting an uphill battle. Not only do many Americans have negative views of atheists, but many prominent atheists also do a disservice to their cause by attacking religious belief. Downey and others like her are using a strategy that has been effective in the past. When John F. Kennedy was trying to convince Americans that his Catholic faith would not influence his decisions as President he highlighted all of the American values and interests he shared with Protestant Americans. With this strategy he was able to become the first Catholic President of the United States. Although we may be a long way from an atheist President, it seems likely that in the long run, a positive message will serve atheists better than a negative one. If religious Americans don’t feel that atheism is an attack on traditional American values they will be more likely to accept it. The media will have to play a role in changing American’s perception of atheism. Maybe stories about Bill Maher’s movie, Religulous, are more interesting, but they do not necessarily represent all atheists, just like Jerry Falwell does not represent all Evangelical Christians. Will the positive atheist movement gain greater notoriety? Will atheism become acceptable in the political world? All of that remains to be seen, but the movement seems to be off to a “positive” start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
While I don't have a magic ball to predict the future of atheism, I'm not so sure that it's progression is either going to be positive or negative in relation to religion- it is just going to happen (and in this sense it can only be negative). While a lot has happened since Time magazine's cover loudly wondered if God was dead, it seems that in many way's while "hard" atheism has mostly gone the way of the dinosaur, pious religious belief in most countries is headed in the same direction. As far as "positive" atheism goes, take a look at the more widespread secular humanist movement spearhead by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al to see just how positive this movement is. However, it is important to note that secular humanism (itself a religion by virtually any accepted defintion of the term) is not atheism. There are many people who are not religious (including me) who find these hard-line secularists to be far crazier than virtually any specific religious sect. When it comes to these religious sects though, virtually all statisitcs show that pious religious practice is at all time lows, and consult Prothero's American Jesus to see how (un)orthodox some of the beliefs of self-identified Christians are. As such, it seems that many of these conflicts we read about are really just strange things propped up by the media regarding more fundamental branches of religion (including those of the secular stripe) whose sway is probably only going to continue to decline.
I think that this post was thoughtful and hit at an issue that is extremely important. I think that James really hit the nail on the head when he says that "Maybe stories about Bill Maher’s movie, Religulous, are more interesting, but they do not necessarily represent all atheists, just like Jerry Falwell does not represent all Evangelical Christians." As I read through "God, Humbug" and the ensuing posts I couldn't help but think about how negative atheism generally is. By focusing on the positive, however, atheists and Christians may actually be able to come together. Both sides need to realize that belief is a personal choice and that feeling intense negativity toward another person purely because of their belief is absolutely pointless. This issue makes me think of a past post where an author drew a link between religion and stupidity. Mistakes like this only serve to divide people further, something that Christians should not desire and positive atheists seem to want to refrain from.
I wanted to address a couple of points brought up in the post and ensuing comments and bring a different perspective to the conversation that has been taking place. First off, I commend Downey's group for organizing an opportunity for service at the food pantry with members of the church who responded to their ad. What comes to mind is the idea often expressed in Catholic social teaching of working together with "people of good will" to advance the common good.
At the same time, I find the spread of an atheist movement, however "positive" it may seem, to be tragic (personally, I think the phrase "positive atheism" is a contradiction). Yes, the members of this particular group described in the post did a good thing, but the ideology of the movement is disturbing. As Jonny C points out in his comment, "feeling intense negativity toward a person purely because of their belief is absolutely pointless." I am not at all advocating that we should harbor hatred against atheists, nor do I myself hold any such hatred. Indeed, if there is a lack of belief in God in this world, I think this is largely due to the failure of Christians to love. Brennan Manning, author of The Ragamuffin Gospel and many other books, said, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Correct me if I am mistaken, but didn't Nietzsche himself also say something to the effect that he had never met someone who he felt was really living as a true Christian?
I do not approve of the holiday ads that are being circulated, but what I think is even sadder than the ads themselves is that there is this movement of atheists in the first place. The existence of atheists is obviously nothing new, but it seems that (according to the post at least) there is a recent surge in the proliferation of atheist ideologies in our society (As a side note, even though our nation has religious foundations and has allowed religion to flourish more than many other nations, I daresay that many Americans live their lives as if there is no God). Such a rise should not be celebrated, but lamented and examined. Why is this happening? Why such an unwavering, vocal denial of God? Jonny C talks in his comment about the possibility of atheists and Christians to come together. Do you mean for works of charity, such as helping at a food pantry? That would be a good thing (especially with the hope that such service work would open up opportunities for meaningful dialogue and thus be a means of sharing the Gospel). Do you mean "coming together" in a different way, though? If so, than I don't know that this is something we should be longing for. Let us not sacrifice truth in an effort to achieve a superficial unity.
In the 1965 document Dignitatis Humanae, Pope Paul VI writes, "On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it" (paragraph 1). Such a statement may be hard to swallow in today's society, especially where relativism has thrown us into confusion about whether there is an objective truth at all that we can come to know. Assuming that a loving God exists (and I say this understanding that not everyone on the blog shares this belief), such a reaction against expressions of atheism like the ads stems not merely from a subjective preference, but from a love for the truth. Let us hope and pray that the love of the truth shared by those who believe in God may manifest itself in genuine, Christlike love towards all of our neighbors, that all may come to know the One Who is love and truth Himself. Such actions stem from the joyful realization that God is far too wonderful to keep to ourselves.
I'm glad James brought this post to our attention, because I think atheists and secular humanists are often conspicuously absent from our society's high-minded talks on religious tolerance and community. To be fair, the conflicts between Hindus and Muslims or Muslims and Jews are in many cases more immediate, more pressing and probably deserve a larger slice of the publicity pie. Yet I believe the split between believers of many kinds - especially Christians - and those who do not believe in a creator deity is a much more fundamental impasse, and more difficult to traverse. They key to practical religious tolerance (although ideally we could respect each other despite vehement and polar disagreements) is our ability to remain cognizant of similarities, of likenesses that run through every creed and that have the potential to unite us in a broad way that supersedes the details. The comment above is surely correct that the standard bearers of the atheist and secular humanist communities (Hitchens, et al.) have not used conciliatory tones in their writing. So while it may be impossible to determine the motives of any faith group, it is hard for me not to feel some hope at an atheist community willing to reach out and build bridges, hoping one day to cross them and become a part of the larger faith community.
Post a Comment